You must keep in mind, that absolutely none of this Lunar Lander issue would have ever become in question, if others and myself could have received a little support for our ongoing research, that which should have nothing whatsoever to do with our lunar expeditions, except perhaps as towards better understanding our proven technologies and subsequent chances of applying such towards future Venus missions (especially with regard to solar radiation exposures).

Will, what can I say, these early astronaut guys were apparently so damn good (even somewhat radiation proof), that they were so able to pull off this Apollo lunar adventure essentially without a hitch, at least as far as their "Lunar Lander" was concerned. Even though, time after time, that of every recorded Earthly (simulated at 1/6th scale weight so as to equal that of the lunar environment) test flight had ended in utter disaster(s).

In looking back; one can't help but to notice, there was not ever one space/flight publication or of any other national news broadcast or publication that ever ran with a story regarding a successful simulated Lunar Lander test flight. Those test crash events on the other hand, those went exactly according to plan.

You may also need to recall; those Earth bound test flight modules were in fact configured specifically as 1/6 gravity scaled versions, so that all of the instrumentation (so called fly-by-wire) interfaces and those manual override controls could be thoroughly verified, obviously refined, and once again thoroughly test flight proven with an actual astronaut at the helm. Since these test flights were not to be even true to life, in other words, the test module wasn't being dropped untethered from a helicopter at 10,000' and then being expected to stabilize and eventually land (along with sufficient reserves for re-joining the command module). Instead, the test flight started as a controlled release a mere few feet off the ground (fully tethered and electronically interfaced at that), then expected to travel a mere few yards down range. After all, if anything the least bit misunderstood or overlooked happened to rear itself near or on the lunar surface, looking at it this way, we would simply have our vacuum freeze dried astronauts as forever implanted on the moon. Not a pretty picture, and a whole lot of very bad PR at that.

You would have to think, that the one thing NASA could conjure up (since they can't seem to fork over any of those 10's of thousands of original lunar surface acquired negatives), would be at least one solid (16mm and/or 35mm) movie film, as that capturing the successful lander test flight. But we're not going to be that lucky, not even a tethered simulation can be found, not of one recorded successful down-range test flight, and besides having no technical specs, there is not even one independent witness, and further remember that this relatively top heavy (high center of gravity) Lander module, besides having to be precisely stabilized with regard to it's continually varying fuel load, had to be capable of dropping out of the sky while traveling down-range (using purely rocket thrust) and as to navigate (fully stabilized without the aid of any airframe mass gyros) essentially thousands of in-flight miles each way (to from the command module).

Now this issue alone is getting just a little wee bit embarrassing.

How can anyone maintain faith that we would send our astronauts off into such a forbidding adventure, off into the voids of space, so totally dependent upon an unproven technology. And you just might have to rethink, that at least one of hundreds of multiple air/flight technology publications or at least a tabloid would have run a truly verifiable test flight story. What I mean is, this whole NASA/Apollo thing was all the rage at the time, and nearly every publication (including "Play Boy") wanted a piece of the action.

Here (back on Earth), in reality we still can't seem to keep the damn Osprey's in the air and we barely manage to sustain our stealth fighters, as both of these fully aerodynamic aircraft incorporate multiple redundant sensors and multiple high performance computers, plus require constant and ever ongoing ground crews and, for the most part, these concepts were not even the least bit conceived of in the late 60's and, neither are based upon the more complex rocket engine powered format nor all that dependent upon external gravity issues nor so freaking critical as to center of gravity issues, then also do remember, that the lunar lander module was mostly comprised of mass quantities of that all essential fuel for those thirsty rocket engines, then there was electrical power generation considerations and plenty of just basic air for the crew members. The combined craft (with it's crew and supplies) formulated a Earthly touchdown weight of approx 36,000 lbs, and thus 6,000 lbs as situated on the moon (this by the way was not including the command module tonnage nor of it's fuel and inventory pay loads plus it's re-entry pod with heat shields and multiple other support and safety considerations) and, there was damn little room for the type of computers of that day and age, even lessor room for the power plant (fuel cell) in order to power them as well as powering essential other support functions. Overall energy, we're talking perhaps several kilowatts of equivalent hourly energy consumption per person, and for each and every hour, that certainly adds up, as the exterior temperature was never just right, it's either +250 degrees or potentially -250 degrees (so, if we're ever going to obtain Venus L2, perhaps we all need to review the energy demands and then rehash about that insulation issue as well as solar flare shielding considerations).

The LL fuel burn-off was obviously fairly substantial, especially as having to descend from 70 miles, and at some considerable initial speed at that, then traveling essentially thousands of in-flight or down-range miles until obtaining final touchdown (obviously no air breaking and otherwise having a relatively constant gravity pull of acceleration process towards the lunar surface, so therefore, some amount of rocket thrust nearly all of the way). I believe the actual touchdown weight (depending upon fuel burn) was reported as being something less then 6000 lbs., and therefore, the compensation for this ever changing module/pod weight and subsequently varying center of gravity (due to such fuel burn off) required continuously varying thrust compensations, where this process would have been a never ending barrage of fairly complex calculations. Apparently human control interface was the primary and perhaps their only option, as far as modulating the main plus all of those multiple small rocket engines. Too bad that no one can yet successfully demonstrate that same degree "lander" capability, not even under ideal conditions as safety-tethered right here on Earth.

So, this is where others and now myself are; with the lingering questions of exactly where is this supporting fly-by-wire documentation, from that pre-70's era, that which so sufficiently addresses these concerns, and above all else, where is that 1/6th gravity scale test flyer??? If it worked at all, there should be more then just one such craft and, they should all have been in storage and/or better yet on display and, thereby easily refueled and simply re-flown (how about with all three crew onboard, while moving their butts about). NASA supposedly prides itself on their exceptional equipment technology as well as all of their relentless and unforgiving documentation, Christ!, I'm betting you need 6 forms and a HasMat team just to sharpen a pencil, and don't even ask about flushing a toilet.

None of us have ever been asking for the keys to their vault, certainly nothing all that "national security related", just the films of this equipment flying (on it's own) and then some basic figures as to the gross outfitted weight (as prior to the actual lunar deployment), to be including fuel and oxygen tonnage and hourly energy demands. So, none of that's giving away of the actual "how to" technology nor much of any actual engineering drawings.

NASA has had 35+ years to properly support and answer just these sorts of questions, and they have chosen to not do so. Early on, there was even an overall safety engineer that was supposed to tell us more as to what our chances were (that sort of opportunity was cut abruptly short). So, either they are so confident or assured of their "non-disclosure" policy having sufficient enforcement (adequate threats and penalties as well as ample rewards for keeping your mouth shut), and/or they are simply all holding out for their own retirement benefits, each hoping they don't have to take early or forced retirements or worse. I'm thinking, perhaps this NASA/cold-war cash cow umbilical is going be damn hard to sever, if at all.

The apparent willful lack of supporting documentation (especially where there should not have been any voids) is clearly why I've chosen to believe that something has been going terribly wrong with our NASA (perhaps all along) and, in order to salvage this Club NASA, something fairly radical needs to be implemented, as here once again, from my own limited research (my having to look and read the best of what NASA has to provide) and then reading the research of others, I, just as others have, formulated some basic conclusions and, I am now prepared to offer what many consider are highly relevant ideas and hopefully feasible solutions. Now obviously, none of this is what NASA wants nor needs to hear, and is likely also why I've received so little respect and/or support from NASA, towards the greatest "motherload" of all discoveries known to mankind, that being the greatest and most profound possibility of locating at least the remains of "LIFE" (not as we may know it) existing on the planet Venus, and that's an obtainable worthy objective that's damn near right next door. Will, too bad for humanity, as I am certainly not the one at fault for NASA's short falls or never-ending cover-up's, in fact, I seem to be about the only truth seeking independent that holds fourth anything of sufficient values (such as the discovery of "GUTH Venus") and, damn if I am not still totally outside of their "non-disclosure" cult.

The next big set of problems; this clearly has everything to do with all their "non-disclosure" crap, obviously hiding behind what can't possibly be of any truly honest NSA or DoD consideration other then ulterior cold-war motives, but then perhaps "truth" is in the eye of the beholder, especially if your truth just happens to be funneling cash/cash into your program and thereby into your pockets. So let us perhaps now move on, as to review something about all those prematurely deceased, those existing closest to the so called truth, those most connected to almost every upper level aspect of what seems to be missing (facts and independent supportive evidence), then onto how and why our NSA and DoD fit so nicely into our so called international space research and exploration (I mean, who's kidding who).